Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/S Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019EXCIA/23/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed condonation of delay for time-barred appeals. Addressing a precedent issue where a Division Bench judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court, the court held thestay did not bind the current bench and rejected the contrary view, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; appeals dismissed.

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Centrallexcise Appeal No. 2412019

¶3

Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Earlier Known As Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar Rajasthan- 301001.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

MIS Balkrishna Industries LtdIrSp-,923. Phase-Ii, Riico Industrial Area, Bhiwadi. ~lwa@fi~~%: fi b ?LW&''%" .--r :& ' gay, -t;g ee n:----~~~~~~d~~t .2. . .- . ,a@%' Connected With w$>a D.B. Centrallexcise Appeal No. 23/2019+&,-.?& * ..z ?@%qj Commissloner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Earlier Known As Commissioner Of CentraleExd ' And Service Tax, A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

MIS Balkrishna Indust And E-306-313, Riico Industrial Area, Chopa

¶9

r. -. xi m- ',.% .'.
HON'BLE MR. JZ
HON'BLE MR. JU I

¶10

Judament / Order

¶11

The appeals are time barred having been filed with delay of 25 and 26 days respectively. Applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

¶12

For the reasons mentioned therein, the applications are

¶13

allowed. Delay in filing the appeals are condoned.

¶14

The matters are heard finally.

¶15

These appeals are directed against the judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi dated 26.6.2018.

¶16

~

¶17

Learned t the learned Tribunal in has taken the view that the aq1 %" tubeslflaps etc are i .;; of final product. The Tribunal in the said 3Cre.t on the tubes and flaps.

¶18

Learned coun ;e& that even against the judgment of learned bnt filed appeals before the Division Bench 2312009 (Commission Industries Ltd. ) wh vide judgment dated 4.1.2017. However, the department has filed SLP against the said judgment.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the SLP filed against the aforesaid judgment as well as several other SLPs were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6.2.2019 as not pressed, therefore, the judgment passed by Division Bench has attained finality and would be binding on the subsequent

¶20

division bench. Learned counsel also submitted that contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court cannot be binding in this case. In fact, operation and. effect of the judgment of Kerala High Court has been stayed by the Supreme Court and hence that judgment cannot be relied upon as a precedent.

¶21

Counsel for the appellant . . further submitted that the dismissal of SLP effect does down by

¶22

Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., &@ mMP), 2006(193) ELT 3 (SC) same parties i.e. respo $ as not pressed as the same view has already Kerala High Court. The Division Bench while d eal of the department did b igh Court and relied on

¶23

We do not see an r that view.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

¶25

(NARENDW-SINGH DHADDHA),]

¶26

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶27

SANDEEP RAWAT 123125-26

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/S Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/S Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Vandana Rajauria D/O Jagdish Babu Rajauria

State of Rajasthan Vs Lakhama Ram Meena S/O Shri Nanda Ram Meena

Ramveer Singh Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Vs M/S Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

Efl Foods Limited Vs State of Rajasthan